Mangla Giri Vs. Regional Administrative Committee Varanasi & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21230 of 1996
(CC – 5335/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17-04-1996 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No. 31643 of 1990)
(CC – 5335/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17-04-1996 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No. 31643 of 1990)
Petitioner: Mangla Giri
Respondent: Regional Administrative Committee Varanasi & Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21230 of 1996
(CC – 5335/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17-04-1996 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No. 31643 of 1990)
(CC – 5335/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17-04-1996 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No. 31643 of 1990)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 11, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. Y.P. Sharma and Mr. Debasis Mishra, Advocates for the Peti-tioner.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Dismissal after defalcation and opportunity to make good the loss which was not utilised by appellant – Held in view of opportuni-ty given, it cannot be said that he was denied opportunity – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The charge against the petitioner is that as per Special Audit for 1981-82, he defalcated a sum of Rs. 18,970.85 in General Distribution System, Rs. 20,789.50 under Cash and Carry Programme and had shown shortage of four quintals of sugar worth amount Rs. 1540/- and 80 Kgs. of sugar worth amount Rs.308/- and as per Special Audit report of 1982-83, for a further amount of Rs. 23,746.00. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to make good the loss. But he did not deposit the money. Consequently, an order of his removal from service came to be passed but reasons for the same were no assigned. He filed an appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee which dismissed the same. When the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31643/90 the High Court in the impugned order dated April 17, 1996 dismissed the writ peti-tion. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. A contention has been raised by the petitioner that he has not been given an opportunity to defend and except for the year 1991, no direction was given earlier and, therefore, he was denied of reasonable opportunity to defend himself resulting in violation of principle of natural justice. We find no force in the conten-tion. When the petitioner was given opportunity to make good the loss and he did not deposit the same, it is too difficult to believe that the locker was opened in his absence and the amount was taken by somebody in his absence when he was on leave due to medical grounds. The theory now set up is too fantastic to be believed. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegali-ty in the order passed by the High Court warranting interference.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Delay condoned.
2. The charge against the petitioner is that as per Special Audit for 1981-82, he defalcated a sum of Rs. 18,970.85 in General Distribution System, Rs. 20,789.50 under Cash and Carry Programme and had shown shortage of four quintals of sugar worth amount Rs. 1540/- and 80 Kgs. of sugar worth amount Rs.308/- and as per Special Audit report of 1982-83, for a further amount of Rs. 23,746.00. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to make good the loss. But he did not deposit the money. Consequently, an order of his removal from service came to be passed but reasons for the same were no assigned. He filed an appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee which dismissed the same. When the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31643/90 the High Court in the impugned order dated April 17, 1996 dismissed the writ peti-tion. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. A contention has been raised by the petitioner that he has not been given an opportunity to defend and except for the year 1991, no direction was given earlier and, therefore, he was denied of reasonable opportunity to defend himself resulting in violation of principle of natural justice. We find no force in the conten-tion. When the petitioner was given opportunity to make good the loss and he did not deposit the same, it is too difficult to believe that the locker was opened in his absence and the amount was taken by somebody in his absence when he was on leave due to medical grounds. The theory now set up is too fantastic to be believed. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegali-ty in the order passed by the High Court warranting interference.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
